Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 8, 2012 5:00pm-5:30pm PST

5:00 pm
captioned by the national captioning institute supervisor chu: good morning. vulcan to the regular meeting of the budget finance subcommittee. come in joined by the vice chair, supervisor avalos, as well as a supervisor can. mr. young, do you have any announcements for us? >> please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards are to be included and should be
5:01 pm
submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the march 13, 2012 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: please call item no. 1. >> item number one. resolution approving the terminal 3 news and specialty store lease between hudson group retail, llc, and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have caffeine whitener. >> -- cathy widner. >> thank you. we are requesting a new lease for the hudson retail group, comprised of two newsstands and one specialty store lease in terminal 3. the proposed lease is a revolt -- result of a competitive request for lee's processes. there were six proposals that resulted in hudson being the
5:02 pm
highest ranking responsible bidder. it includes the combined amount of our standard grant formula gross sales area or a minimum annual guarantee of $711,000. the airport revenue development staff estimates, based on projected growth revenue for hudson, that they will be paying on the percentage rent for these spaces. about $774,000 per year. the budget analysts recommend approval of the leasing and that would be happy to answer questions. supervisor chu: with no questions from the committee at this time, let's go to harvey. >> madam chair, this lease requires at one time minimum investment.
5:03 pm
as well as a promotional fee of $574,000 annually. if that pans out, there will be $63,232. we recommended that you approve this resolution. the lease was recommended to you on the basis of a competitive proposal. supervisor chu: let's open this up for public comment. are there any members that wish to speak on item number one? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, is there a motion? we can do that without objection. item number two?
5:04 pm
>> item number two. resolution approving amendment no. 1 to boarding area b and c books and news store lease no. 04-0231 between pacific gateway concessions, llc, and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission. supervisor chu: thank you. we have kathy widner. >> the item before you seeks approval to retroactively terminate a portion of the current lease of pacific gateway concessions to reduce square footage by 3000 square feet. there will be a new total amount. it will be existing bookstore space in terminal one, suggesting the guarantee downward to $69,000 per year, to affect the reduced square footage. this would retroactively approve the airport's termination of physical source space required
5:05 pm
to accommodate security lanes at the request of the threat -- transportation security administration. this would approve the reclaiming of the bookstore square footage and adjust the current lease it to lower the minimum annual guaranteed based on square footage, as well as reimbursing the tenant for unamortized tenant improvement costs. i really want to acknowledge that this is coming to you retroactively and i apologize for that. i believe that based on conversations with development staff, there was hope that a lot of the changing and moving around of tenant space that we have, that they were hoping to swap this out with another at the airport. it turned out not to be a viable option. this is not our lot -- normal course of business in bringing
5:06 pm
amendments. i apologize for that. >> thank you. can we speak to the issue of cpi -- supervisor chu: thank you. can we speak to the issue of cpi? >> the report points out that we were using an index that has not gone up. there is an option to renew on the amended square footage for your option and we recommend that if we extend that option, we amend the lease language with cpi adjustment. we will do that if we extend the lease. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose? >> madam chair, members of the committee, this proposed first amendment would reduce the minimum annual guaranteed payable by pacific gateway to the airport from 220,000 based
5:07 pm
on the reduction of 3183, at the request of the gsa. that space is needed for security areas. we also point out on page 4 of our report, the minimum annual guaranteed, the cpi adjustment issue, our recommendation as has been stated is to adjust that minimum annual guaranteed to be urban consumers a san francisco in california indexed, if the option is to extend the exercise the resolution for the proposed first amendment action through october 1, 2011,
5:08 pm
incurring the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: let's open this up for public comment. seeing no one, public comment is closed. is there a motion to amend the resolution? supervisor avalos: i can make a motion to amend for retroactivity. i'd also like the motion to move the full item forward with recommendations. >> we have a recommendation to the item forward. given that the department is also in agreement with regards to the cpi usage, this committee's preference is that the airport does do that if there is a lease extension that occurs. we can take that, without objection. item number three? >> item #3. ordinance authorizing the department of emergency management to retroactively accept and expend a fy2011 homeland security grant program
5:09 pm
grant in the amount of $1,434,644 from the united states department of homeland security, through the california emergency management agency, for building and sustaining preparedness capabilities, and amending ordinances to provide for the creation of one grant- funded position in the department of emergency management. supervisor chu: thank you. >> i am joined by our emergency services manager and our service specialist. the grant in front of you today is a $1.4 million grant from the department of homeland security that we have received and we have brought to you every year. this is one of the bread and butter plants that funds the operations in the department, including equipment training and exercises for the city and county of san francisco.
5:10 pm
it also funds medical planning for mass casualty incidents in san francisco. this is 100% grant funding from the department of security. there are two items that might be of interest. it does shift to the position from gsa to gdm. we are switching that position from gsa to be under dbm. this position were some long term post-disaster recovery planning for the city, as well as several other commissions at the department of emergency management. one of the items on the putin roster for the police department, this grant will purchase several wireless data cards used for wireless broadband communication on their commercial services. the discussion last month on
5:11 pm
this committee was how we would pay for commitment -- equipment once it is up and running. this is the type of grant that will pay for the equipment. we are instead using this funding to print -- acquire commercial wireless coverage. we anticipate that next time we bring this to you, rebuild using grant funding to purchase wireless devices on the grant system. i wanted to highlight that to you as a grant that is a source for the equipment for the project and the future and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. supervisor chu: i believe that we have no budget analysts report. let's open this up for public comment. other members of the public that wish to speak on this item, number three? >> good morning, supervisors. my name is douglas. i have lived in san francisco for 60 years.
5:12 pm
i speak in support of this ordinance. in my opinion, the city and county of san francisco has underestimated the potential dangers from different sources, especially overseas. this type of workmen's would increase the vigilance of the different departments inside the san francisco. being a longtime resident, i do not look forward to being vaporized by whichever enemy you want to call our enemy. i think that anything resembling something like this needs to be accepted and needs to be recognized as something that is actually real in the sense that in the type of security that we live in, you cannot afford any mistakes, because that might be the last mistake he will see in your lifetime. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you.
5:13 pm
are there other members of the public that which to comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed. >> motion to move forward with recommendations. -- supervisor avalos: motion to move forward with recommendations. supervisor chu: i recently heard about federal cutbacks in terms of tsunami, flood-type funding. not now, but i wanted to get an update from you offline. >> i have that information and would be glad to follow up with you. supervisor chu: without objection, thank you. item #4. >> item #4. resolution authorizing the department of recreation and parks to retroactively accept and expend a grant valued at $116,000 from the san francisco conservation corps to rebuild community garden plot terraces at wolfe lane community garden. supervisor chu: thank you. we have more with recreation and parks on this item. >> -- martin with recreation and
5:14 pm
parks on this item. >> good morning, supervisors. located in the heights neighborhood, managed by the recreation and parks department community grants program. the community garden is comprised of plots, many of which are deteriorated. the conservation corps is going to replace the spot with funding through the state's proposition 84 water bond of 2006, for public safety and erosion control in the amount of $116,000. i am available to answer questions. supervisor chu: sounds like there are no positions funded through this grant. is there a matching fund with it? supervisor chu: -- >> no. supervisor chu: are there members of the public it wished
5:15 pm
to speak on item number four? seeing no one, public comment is closed. we have a motion? supervisor kim: move forward with recommendations. supervisor chu: we can do that without objection. item number five? >> item number 5. resolution authorizing the department of public library to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $99,680 from the institute of museum and library services for a planning process, in partnership with the bay area video coalition, the california academy of sciences, and kqed to achieve two primary goals to -- one, develop a vision, program design, and test a teen center learning lab at the main library -- two, develop a citywide framework for incorporating content-based curriculum in a shared online platform, with the help of a broad consortium of youth service providers and a team of youth leaders across the city. supervisor chu: thank you. we have jill, from the san francisco public library. >> as stated, we have extended
5:16 pm
approval to except this grant, planning for 18 center and in learning lab in the main library, but the services that are city-wide through a network of partners. i am available to answer any questions or give you more details. supervisor chu: where would it be located in the main library? >> we are undergoing a planning process with the bureau of architecture and we have narrowed it down to two potential locations. the main library, when built in the 1990's, centers were not be included in large, urban libraries, but they were coming into fashion. we have not had a teenage used in the library. unfortunately, it requires displacement of other functions. we are working through that process and we are down to two options. we should have that identified by the end of march. supervisor chu: quickly, in terms of the main library, what
5:17 pm
is the usage of the library identified as? >> while the membership of the general populace with active library cards over the past year is always running about 50%, for the teenage population is much higher, around 70%. collections circulate very highly. we do not have a good space for them. we do a lot of outreach in the tundra neighborhood. just as the main library is a center for the city, for the youth, for the children's center and adults with a research collection, we want it to be the resource for a teenage population as well. supervisor chu: supervisor? supervisor kim: i was hoping that you could talk in more detail about the framework in partnership with the bay area, city coalition -- >> absolutely. supervisor kim: we do not have a lot of new spaces in district 6.
5:18 pm
we have a lot of young people. if you could talk about what brought this forward, the partnership itself, and how you plan to do outreach to young people to come to the main library. >> as i mentioned, our original impetus was a main library, but there is a movement going on funded by the macarthur foundation, mostly, about the importance in the educational environment for youth, moving youth from an experienced of digital media as consumers through the passive media, the games, and television, moving them into having the skills to be creators of media, content creators, producers, all of the skills that can help them in deciding what they want to do in their adult lives. the grant was created by the institute of museum library
5:19 pm
services in partnership with the macarthur foundation and the scientific technology museums. it was a competitive process. the proposal that be put forward -- that we put forward those to the idea of creating pilots around the city, to a college that there are teenagers around the city in we have a great potential for great organizations to serve you. through organizations like the california academy of sciences, having a platform of kqed public radio to put that information out there, to have a platform to display the works created. we took advantage of it. it is a planning grant. obviously, not all of the solutions are identified. we have 18 months to test out
5:20 pm
different programs, and test out this huge network of organizations and how they can solidify something like the hive learning network in chicago, supported by ongoing funding, incorporating not just a small group, but hundreds of partners throughout the city like this. which is one of our collaborators on the grant. we have 18 months to work it out. outcomes include the pilot projects, learning network, and the main library conceptual design, as well as online platforms that can be shared across san francisco and other cities working on similar projects. supervisor chu: i know that this is still in the planning stage, but on in terms of feedback, if we could do direct outreach to neighborhoods serving youth and organizations that may use the california academy of sciences but may not have a base in their programs, if we do outreach
5:21 pm
directly. also, we have a huge media crew that also does digital media content work. i think it would be helpful, since they are so geographically close to the main library, to work with them as well. >> a great suggestion. we had 10 collaborating groups when we put in for the grant that wanted to be part of the initiative. since we have gotten the grant we have had dozens who have contacted us, and that is our intention, to create years of scaffolding and networks of used to help get them to the projects that will help them. supervisor chu: thank you. i do not believe we have an analyst's report with this. let's open it up for public comment. are there members of the public it wish to speak on item number five? >> good morning, supervisors, my name is douglas. i would like to speak in favor of this resolution, that
5:22 pm
according to my opinion, i think that the teen center of learning lab needs to be viewed from a different point of view. most kids, by the time they are teenagers, to be realistic, are behind on the learning curve. especially in the public schools. i think that the teen center of learning lab should emphasize remedial education and give all of these kids a chance to catch up, since a lot of them enter junior college, csu, even you see -- uc, requiring remedial courses, which many people tell me kind of ruins the college experience like their parents had. i think that this learning laboratory should stress remedial education. another part that it should have is a kind of question and answer for where kids can basically ask questions that they would
5:23 pm
probably fear asking elsewhere. in a sense of it being educational, i think it would also encourage kids to realize that even though they are promoted from grade to grade and level to level, realistically speaking, they are not getting a good education. we should be man enough to face the fact that -- why send a kid to high school, junior college, and college, when realistically you are just going to subject them to even more disappointed when they finally realized, on their own, that they did not get a good education in san francisco. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public it wish to speak on item number five? seeing no one, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send the item forward with
5:24 pm
recommendations, without objection. thank you. item number six? >> item #6. resolution authorizing a ten- year lease of 2712 mission street from redwood mortgage investors viii, a california limited partnership, for the department of public health at an initial annual rent of $768,000. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe we have two representatives on this one. >> good morning, supervisors. i am with the real-estate division. i am seeking approval for a lease agreement on behalf of department of public health. it is a 10 year lease of 32,000 square feet, $2 per square foot, per month. a decrease over the prior lease rent of $3.40 per foot. the maximum of 5% will be made
5:25 pm
at a yearly basis. providing up to $150,000 worth of landlord improvements with a rental credit of approximately $216,047 to the city if the commencement date is before march 31, 2012. the rent reflects the fair market value for this property. any questions? supervisor chu: thank you. no questions at this moment. do we have any representatives that wanted to add anything to the presentation? >> good morning, supervisors. i am with the department of public health. in the operations manager that oversees several sites for the community programs. we are in strong support of this. i am trying to negotiate this with -- i know that it took a long time, to try to get it right for this location.
5:26 pm
it is a key service area for the focus of the mission to serve clients. it is one of our main hubs of service. to move there, we didn't quite a bit of analysis. it would take quite a bit of planning, time, and color, as well as being pretty disruptive to our clients. beehive the recommend approval of this. supervisor chu: thank you. just a question for real estate? on this item, it looks like we have occupied the space and the lease expired in december of last year, and we had occupied the space on a month-to-month basis for some time. i understand not wanting to create a disruption for the clients that currently use the area and location, but i am just wondering -- in terms of timing for real estate, why did we not
5:27 pm
see a least come before us before the expiration? we run into a lot of these questions put about the timeliness of leases being negotiated quicker. can you speak to that? >> at one point there was talk about moving out of the property. we should have had discussions with the landlord earlier. at one point we were thinking of moving, but then the landlord came back and said they would decrease the rent for you. it took a while to negotiate. i understand that you probably wished it should have started six months prior, so that the time would not have lapsed so much. supervisor chu: i think that on a larger point, whether it is property or different that is owned and managed by different entities, there are city departments and properties that have fallen into the jurisdiction of real-estate.
5:28 pm
it would be interesting for us to get a sense of how many leases, amongst other things, are currently out there, understanding what our plan is to address this. i see a lot of identification and items coming before the committee, but they are retroactive, and the board is also asking why things come to us later. sometimes it is our process, but sometimes it sounds like a negotiating issue, a problem, or something else that happens. i think we need a better understanding of that. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i want to reiterate that as well. it is an issue with an item that comes to us later. if there is a system in place where there are lease termination dates in the database, there is almost an automatic trigger in advance of negotiations. my question, and i am not sure if i should wait for the budget analyst report, i am happy to
5:29 pm
see that there was a huge reduction in the rent. that is great. it is important for the city. i am curious as to why there was such a drop per square foot. in terms of the value of real estate, that was something -- was that something that could have been done earlier? or was this the only time it could be negotiated down? >> at one point, we were looking at other properties. i believe that the landlord at that point really wanted this city to stay -- the city tuesday. it became to the city's benefit. >> we did begin negotiations well in advance. this was one of our major leases. we could not come to a real